Echoes of Iraq, and Forever

We're being ill served by our elected "representatives." The Democrats were given majorities in both houses of Congress more than a year ago in anticipation of their making the Prez come to heel in Iraq. But his overwhelming charisma, or massive popularity, or political moxie, or . . . something or other, has thwarted them at every turn. For the most part, they've simply given him what he wants, apparently helpless to stand up against him. And what's it gotten them? Nothing that I can see, unless you want to mention lower approval ratings than the Prez himself. But what's it gotten him? It's gotten him time, time to work out the details of a permanent presence in Iraq. Earlier today, he released a joint statement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki outlining a "long-term relationship" between the two countries. If you don't want to read the full statement itself, the White House also offers a handy-dandy fact sheet to make the whole thing more understandable. Of course, if neither of those options quite floats your boat, maybe you'd be better off with Spencer Ackerman's excellent reporting in TPMMuckraker. I don't have much to add to Ackerman, actually, so I'll just quote a significant paragraph to pass on:

Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.

So far Chris Dodd is the only presidential contender that I've seen respond to this, and his response is pretty unequivocal: "In a Dodd Administration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq." Who else on the Democratic side opposes the plan (I can't imagine that anybody who's not Ron Paul has a chance of being against this idea)? Now's the time to make yourself heard.